Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Working mostly with the R8 I find the 35-70 f4 to be the ticket. If I go to a prime lens then I will opt for the 24 or the 21. If I want some length then the 90 f2 Cheers Wilber - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Douglas Cooper" <douglas@metaversalstudios.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 11:44 AM Subject: Re: [Leica] Focal Length and Fetish > At 12:01 AM 11/7/00 -0800, you wrote: > >May I ask those luggers who use the 35mm (or shorter) lens MORE than > >any other, if they can explain why they do so. For instance, is it > >ease of use or do you actually like the results. > > > >For me, I find that anything less than 50mm is an "in your face " > >style. > > > Strange how every eye seems to have its own perspectival preferences. I > shot for years with a Hexar, but I never really liked the 35mm focal > length. I intend to get either a Summicron or a Canon 35/2 sooner or > later, if only to find out whether 35 feels somehow better on a Leica. But > I've always preferred the 28mm, and the 50. And, recently, the > Cosina/Voigtlander 75. I like the perspectival distortions of a 28, > perhaps because they're obvious -- you can't pretend that you're not using > a wide angle. The 15mm Heliar was just too peculiar for me; the shots I > liked best had the subject bullseyed in the center, so as to draw the eye > away from the radical bending. For a time I enjoyed a 24mm -- a N*k*n > autofocus -- but even that's beginning to feel too wide. In large format, > it's a different story, as you can iron out the perspective. I'm beginning > to like wide lenses on my 4x5's: the 100mm Wide Field Ektar is a > particular favorite. I think it really does reflect a personal aesthetic, > even a style; most of my favorite photographers seem to have restricted > themselves to one or two focal lengths. > > cheers, > > DC >